SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Frontend · Version 1.1.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Axe Accessibility Scan Runner

Improve route and state scan matrix and violation deduplication with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 7 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Runs automated axe-core scans across representative routes and interaction states, deduplicates component-level violations, and preserves evidence for manual follow-up.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Route and state scan matrix
  • Violation deduplication
  • Manual follow-up queue

How Axe Accessibility Scan Runner works

You provide

Component code, field metrics, and the failing interaction

It inspects

Render triggers and layout stability for route and state scan matrix

It decides

A violation deduplication fix targeting the measured vital

You verify

Field Core Web Vitals and keyboard traversal re-checked

What it checks first

Axe Accessibility Scan Runner runs automated axe-core scans across representative routes and interaction states, deduplicates component-level violations, and preserves evidence for manual follow-up. Use it when the work involves Route and state scan matrix, Violation deduplication, Manual follow-up queue.

  1. Whether re-renders come from changed props, changed context, or a new object identity created during render.
  2. Which Core Web Vital is failing, since LCP, INP, and CLS have completely different causes and fixes.
  3. Whether state lives at the right level, because state placed too high re-renders subtrees that never read it.
  4. Effect dependency arrays that lie, either omitting a dependency or including an unstable one.
  5. Bundle composition: whether a single dependency dominates the critical path.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • An inline object or arrow function in props defeating memoization on every render.
  • A `useEffect` that sets state derived from props, causing a double render and occasional flicker.
  • Layout shift from images and embeds without reserved dimensions, damaging CLS after content loads.
  • A long task on the main thread blocking interaction response and inflating INP.
  • Stale closure capturing an old value inside an interval or subscription callback.
  • Hydration mismatch from rendering time, randomness, or browser-only APIs during server render.
  • Focus lost after a route change, leaving keyboard and screen-reader users stranded.

Answers it will reject

  • Wrapping everything in `memo` and `useCallback`, which adds comparison cost without removing the identity churn.
  • Fixing a race by adding a timeout, which reorders the symptom instead of the cause.
  • Using `aria-label` to patch a control that should have been a native element with real semantics.
  • Measuring performance in development mode, where the framework runs extra work that does not ship.

Decision rules it applies

  • Move state down or split context before reaching for memoization.
  • Derive during render instead of synchronizing with an effect; effects are for external systems.
  • Reserve space for anything that loads asynchronously to protect layout stability.
  • Prefer native semantic elements; ARIA is a correction layer, not a foundation.

Evidence it asks for

  • Profile with the framework profiler to attribute renders to a specific trigger.
  • Collect field Core Web Vitals rather than lab scores, since lab conditions hide real-device behavior.
  • Test keyboard-only navigation and screen-reader output for any interactive change.

The method inside

  1. Establish what is actually true about route and state scan matrix from the supplied evidence, and mark what is missing.
  2. Identify the mechanism behind violation deduplication rather than restating the symptom.
  3. Choose the smallest defensible change for manual follow-up queue, weighing impact, confidence, effort, and reversibility.
  4. Validate with automated and manual checks

Deliverables

  • Route and state scan matrix assessment
  • Violation deduplication decision and action plan
  • Manual follow-up queue verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Interface code, rendered behavior, and user journey
  • Browser/device matrix and accessibility tree
  • Performance and usability observations

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Scan this application with axe-core across the main routes and modal states, then group repeated violations by the component that causes them.

Expected output

Define the route, viewport, authentication, and interaction-state matrix before scanning. Record rule, target, impact, and DOM evidence, collapse repeated instances to their shared component, and label checks that axe cannot settle, including focus order, reading order, keyboard behavior, and content meaning...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Route and state scan matrix: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Violation deduplication: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Manual follow-up queue: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Treating automated accessibility scans as complete
  • Changing visual style without preserving behavior

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.